Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Thompson (2nd nomination)

Jonathan Thompson

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Jonathan Thompson
• Articles for deletion/Jonathan Thompson (2nd nomination)

Jonathan Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from a single article in a local newspaper, I'm unable to find any substantial coverage of this individual in reliable sources, as is required to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep The article as it was before being cut down by an SPA noted that he had also been a presenter on Nickolodeon (also referred to in one of the two surviving references [1]), and worked as a journalist. One of the deleted references says that the BBC made a documentary about his early business career. There's still footage available of TV spots about him around the same time [2]. The article retains some early poor writing and there are certainly challenges, not least linkrot and common first and last names, but he seems notable. Mortee (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. I checked the refs in the old revision noted by the user above, they don't indicate notability, they are unrelated, 404s or primary. Lots of vandalism confusing the matter - he even had a huge customer complaint email on an old revision. Szzuk (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Sources checked and return no 404 URL's, content sourced from legitimate sources, perhaps just needs a tidy up and not removal. See comments from Mortee. Northds (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

"keep" its now quite obvious based on recent edits and citations this chap is noteworthy and his contribution to the arcade community significate his article is quality "b" class on the wiki scale and should not be removed as biography of living persons regardless article needs to remain there have now been some recent changes to the artcles sorces it seems this person is indeed noteworthy KEEP is my opinion and to stop making changes without the correct research clearly this person is noteworthy based on the new edits made KEEP keep its quite obvious this person is note worthy from the new editd and changes made to the article the person has several articles now and correct citations and links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro arcade (talk • contribs) 11:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC) — Retro arcade (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It’s quite obvious after the edits made to the profile that this person is noteworthy KEEP is my opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retro arcade (talk • contribs) 09:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Regarding the nomination rationale - it does appear there is more than one mention in local newspapers - but even so, local papers cover the most trivial of local human interest stories so count for little. With only these and primary sources, I see no evidence that WP:GNG is met. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

“Keep” This is nonsnse it’s quite obvious the person is noteworthy and citations are quite valid regardless of what you see the evidence is clear and has been for many years looking at the citations